Bad Post-Doc
Why do you think I don't want to be one?Originally Posted by Jim
I have just over a week left on the antibiotics. It's my refill, which puts me at over a month on the things, but even though I'm pretty much feeling better, I'm not going to stop taking them until I'm out.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Moderator
Okay, until the defenders of this conspiracy join the board, I see little use in this thread, discussing what is happening on another board.
Until then, case closed.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Administrator
After some discussion among the moderators, we will reopen this thread. However, I will point out the specific wording from the Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters
The key things are specific claims, critical analysis, and not just bashing. If this isn't followed, the thread will be closed again.11. The CT forum may also be used for the critical analysis of websites that advocate specific astronomy and space related conspiracies. Such discussions should be limited to the specific claims of those websites and the scientific arguments against those claims. Such discussions are not an excuse to bash the claimants of such conspiracies.
Order of Kilopi
I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum.
I should clarify: those are the terms under which I agree to debate Jarrah directly, should he wish it. It isn't so much a challenge, since I really don't pay much attention to Jarrah's videos.
Here's the background.
About a year ago Jarrah contacted me by e-mail and presented a list of questions he wanted to debate -- in e-mail. One of those was the now-infamous question regarding Brian O'Leary, but there were others. I told Jarrah that I do not debate in private. That is not a limitation reserved for him; it has been my policy for quite a number of years for both ideological and practical reasons. Practical in the sense that I do not wish to repeat myself in endless private debates. Ideological in the sense that I don't wish the debate to be represented elsewhere in "he said, she said" fashion. Let the debate be in public where any and all can see exactly what was said. And Jarrah's handling of email subsequently has borne out my wisdom. He has tried hard to spin up the hypothesis that I lied about my correspondence with O'Leary. However, the fact remains that a well-known associate of O'Leary, Wade Frazier, witnessed our correspondence and stands ready to confirm it. To date, Jarrah refuses to contact him or even to acknowledge the evidence. Hence I don't trust him -- or anyone -- to fairly represent a private conversation in public.
Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.
We seem to differ on what constitutes fair and sensible moderation.
What I require from moderation is preventing the debate, and Jarrah's contribution in particular, from devolving into the mudslinging and irrelevancy for which he is so justly infamous. Although he says he has reformed since 2004, his most recent attempt (2009) still required moderator intervention to deal with his abusive temper. Jarrah still hasn't substantiated that he is capable of adult debate without supervision, hence I require that supervision as a condition of my participation.
In a long-running debate at IMDB (in which, ironically, our fanboy Wwu777 subsequently participated), Jarrah suddenly arrived and asked if IMDB constituted a suitable forum. Naturally it did, since I have posted there for many years. He presented the same questions there that he had in private e-mail, and we began to debate them individually. Jarrah has since abandoned that debate, but the point I wanted to make was that IMDB enforces basic rules against personal attacks, abuse, and so forth.
What I further desire from moderation is the enforcement of a meaningful debate. What I mean by that is some means to keep Jarrah (and everyone, for that matter -- even myself) from sidestepping, evading, changing the subject, and generally employing other debate tricks that distract from testing the ideas at hand. IMDB doesn't enforce that, but BAUT certainly does. So does ApolloHoax, to a lesser extent. And in the IMDB debate Jarrah indeed tried desperately to change the subject when it became apparent he was not able to display sufficient understanding of solar physics. While no moderator held him accountable for his claims still on the table, the other readers made it pretty clear they wanted him to stay on topic. I believe that's why he fled.
Yes, it does seem especially pedantic. But in years of watching hoax theorists and other pseudoscientists debate, I've seen how distraction and evasion plays a big part. Those proponents create a semblance of credibility through artfully dodging and weaving. That's not what the truth is about. Seeking the truth means presenting ideas that endure the worst and most withering assault your critics can manage, not one that dodges every test. There are many of us here who undergo examination in the form of peer review, design review, or other formal tests of strength. We are used to such rigor. The hoax theorists are not, nor do they want to be.
So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?
That would depend on the the nature of the forum. As I implied, I don't consider David Icke's forum to be especially moderated.
The other issue that arises is the personal nature of debate with Jarrah. Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others. This comes to the fore in his materials, and in those of his colleagues, as deeply abusive personal attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the Apollo hoax theory but are instead simply aimed at making me and others seem generally dishonest and foolish.
Toward that end, as much of his handwaving seems directed at the notion "Jay Windley is a proven liar!!!" as toward any particular hoax theory. In other words, even if Jarrah's accusations were true on some point, and I were wrong, it would not affect any Apollo hoax claim; it's simply ad hominem. So it seems wise to approach such a debate cautiously, until the proponent decides what he's actually trying to prove.
Many conspiracy proponents, likely including Wwu777, envision some sort of gladatorial combat where two champions enter the arena and only one will triumph. That's not how the intellectual process works. Jarrah debated at IMDB largely ignoring the questions and comments of others and fixating only on my contribution. That is sad, because others brought up important points and deserved to have their questions addressed. And the same would likely occur in a subsequent debate involving Jarrah. The debate over hoax theories is a test of ideas, not of personal skill. This is what many hoax claimants don't understand. It's not a matter of vindicating the "genius Aussie" as some sort of superior litigant, besting all comers. It's a matter of whether his ideas stand up to scrutiny by all interested parties. Yes, many of these proponents chafe under what seems to be an outnumbering of critics. And that's how academic and professional reviews occur in the real world, so my advice to them is to suck it up and quit complaining.
It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah.
I dismiss it as saber-rattling, which is why Wwu777 seems to be posting only to sympathetic audiences. Jarrah tried to debate outside the protection of YouTube, failed, and ran. And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Jarrah can resume that debate where it left off any time he wishes. I should also add that Wwu777 himself opened a number of threads in the IMDB forum, was roundly refuted, and never made any followup posts. It's clear to me who's hiding.
Order of Kilopi
I want to explicitly acknowledge this warning in light of my lengthy post above. I had wanted to write this for a couple of days but was prevented by circumstances and then by the closure of the thread. It seemed appropriate to brief arch stanton and others similarly situated on the context of my interactions with Jarrah White and his advocates.
I have attempted to phrase my lengthy remarks as a critical analysis of the arguments and techniques employed by Jarrah, by Wwu777, and by the archetypical conspiracy theorists that they represent. That is, I hope it doesn't come across as bashing. It is difficult to separate ad hominem argumentation from an analysis of a proponent's performance in debate. And it often seems fruitless to debate by means of meta-debate. However I believe what I have presented is important to understand. It speaks to the propriety of debate under various circumstances and how those contribute to the discernment of truth.
Senior Member
Speaking for myself, I would say no...it doesn't come across as bashing. Jarrah will never debate you here, or on any forum where he would be held accountable for what he says...the very nature of his "arguments" precludes it.
Although there is that little evil part of me that would love to see you "hand him his hat."
Administrator
Speaking as a moderator of this forum, I have no problem with what you wrote and I think it a good summary of the situation.
Insert awesome title here
Where are these imdb "debates"?
Established Member
IMDB= Internet Movie Database
They have message boards for each movie, and those movies that deal with spaceflight seem to attract Hoaxers like Horse dung attract flies.
One example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/board?p=1
Order of Kilopi
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board
Insert awesome title here
Yuk! Why is imdb using forum software that is older than the AGC?
Senior Member
Boy, you ain't kiddin'...I went to the link you provided...Jarrah seems to answer any question by insulting you and Phil...
It's almost like he thinks that if he can "better" you and Phil, then the Moon landings didn't happen.
Established Member
Let me give further support to that statement. I live in the same area as Jarrah. I offered Jarrah a chance to present his 'evidence' regarding radiation and physics to qualified personnel in the field, in a public forum where both parties could film and verify what went on.
He steadfastly ignored the invitation.
Jarrah does not like open debate, especially with people qualified to question his erroneous statements.
Established Member
The old "If I can tire you out, I can either get you to go away or say I'm right...either way, I win" method of arguing.
What does God need with a starship?
Established Member
Do you know what this guy does for a living? What is his background?
Considering he has over 300 videos on youtube, I have a hard time believing he keeps a normal job.
Established Member
It doesn't really matter who or what he is. He could be the smartest and most successful person in the world. He could be a super genius. But...it doesn't matter because his argument is crap. I think Kleindoofy's sig says it all: "aquire vitam".
Established Member
This information can be found if one wishes to find it.
It is not appropriate to reveal such information without good cause.
We can address his faulty arguments, and we can address his reticent behaviour, but his lifestyle does not play a part in those arguments.
Established Member
My deepest and most profound apologize to anyone I may have offended. I truly didn't intend to do anything inappropriate.
I guess since the question has been asked of him, in relation to his qualifications for making these videos, I assumed that asking the question was acceptable.
Once again, sorry.
Established Member
No problems - no offence taken.
Member
jay how many more times do you wish to be proven wrong. there are so many false statements on your website its hard to know where to start as well as the fact you have accused people of saying and doing things they did not and after it was proved you were wrong you failed to apologize to the people involved. i dont blame jarrah for not wanting to debate you here because this site is full of one eyed fools who cant see past the end of their own nose.
you even tried to get the wank busters to help you prove the landings were not a fake but their tests were so poor a child could have done a better job. just one of their stuff ups was the pointing of a laser at the moon which according to them only reflected back when aimed at the retro reflector but the LRO nasa sent to the moon mapped it by bouncing a laser of it. so they were wrong and that was just one mistake they made and they made quite a few.
unlike you and DR phil i dont claim to be an expert but even a non expert can see that most of what you 2 say is utter rubbish and as fake as the moon missions them self. i have quite a few times on your own web site seen you use insults to refer to certain people and yet you have the hide to have a go at others for doing the same, you act like a spoiled little kid who doesn't get his own way.
both you jay windley and phil plait have both lied on numerous occasions yet you seem to think your right on everything, however making up lies does not make you right it just makes you look stupid.
i am more than happy to debate the fake moon landings with you.
Established Member
Snip.
I, as well as many others on here, would like to see the evidence of the fake.
Over to you.
Established Member
Childish much?you even tried to get the wank busters to help you
Established Member
Pretty serious accusations there, NASTA. Can you provide some specific examples or evidence?
One eyed fools? I'll start the popcorn...
Member
sorry but i refer to them as that because they are just that.
i cant remember how many times i have seen them stuff up different things they call myths.
in australia if you keep doing something and making mistakes constantly people will call you a [language].
so nothing childish about it i am just stating the truth and not only that after i made them aware of their mistakes on there own site a few years ago i was banned and all my posts were removed which in my book makes them that.
they couldn't handle being proved wrong on their own site.
i am not here to talk about them anyway i am here to debate jay not any of you other trolls who just jump on a band wagon.
Last edited by PetersCreek; 2010-Jul-11 at 07:21 PM. Reason: Redacted bad language. (Rule 3)
Member
go and read jays website its all there in black and white, so there is nothing for me to prove on that point.
Established Member
Ah. OK. You are after a target for some reason and cannot provide any evidence? Go on, give it a go, please don't go down the route of death by mod. I find it interesting to see the reasons why people think it is a hoax and more importantly in their own words. I think this gives much more of an insight than looking at videos. I also like to think the hoaxes through, see the other side of the coin.
So, you will not or cannot enlighten me?
Moderator
This kind of attitude is not going to get you very far, NASTA. Stop this right here, debate the topic and not the people on the board. More of this kind of replies will get you an infraction.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Member
sorry i thought you were talking about what jay said and i thought go and look for it your self and dont be lazy.lol
however it seems you were talking about the moon hoax.
when jay comes in and has something to say i will respond then.
Moderator
Hiding words as *s, or using words that the board software automatically turns into *s is not allowed and you are to edit your posts when such happens.
Please read the rules of the board and STAY POLITE at any time.
No personal attacks, discuss the topic not the persons.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Established Member
Why be selective? Please give everyone the benefit of your interpretation of the hoax. I am all ears as Dumbo said to the crow. Well, eye's as it is a forum that appears on a screen. I suspect it is the same as been trawled through before. What is it this time, shadows? Radiation? Computers?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote